Sentences with phrase «arbitral seat in»

A 2015 survey carried out by Queen Mary University of London found that London was the most used and most favoured arbitral seat in the world (based on a survey of 763 respondents and 105 personal interviews).

The move has been driven by their growing involvement in Singapore's expanding ADR market as well as confidence in the future of Singapore as the preferred arbitral seat in the Asia - Pacific Region.

Traditionally, commercial parties have preferred to opt for an arbitral seat in established jurisdictions, such as London or Paris.

It is anticipated that Hong Kong will continue in this reforming mode, particularly as it tries to establish itself as the go - to arbitral seat in the region in the face of strong competition from Singapore.

Not exact matches

Even if arbitration is preferred over litigation (which is more likely in cross-border transactions), Chinese parties may require the dispute to be seated in China and administered by an established Chinese arbitral institution, such as the China International Economic & Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) in Beijing or Hong Kong (CIETAC - HK), or by one of the newer institutions established to specifically handle OBOR disputes, such as the Wuhan Arbitration Commission's OBOR Arbitration Court.

In consequence, concerns were expressed by lawyers that if the anti-suit injunction remained an available remedy in other jurisdictions outside the European member states, then arbitral seats such as New York or Singapore would become more popular than London, if London was no longer capable of making such orderIn consequence, concerns were expressed by lawyers that if the anti-suit injunction remained an available remedy in other jurisdictions outside the European member states, then arbitral seats such as New York or Singapore would become more popular than London, if London was no longer capable of making such orderin other jurisdictions outside the European member states, then arbitral seats such as New York or Singapore would become more popular than London, if London was no longer capable of making such orders.

They say the theory that parties choose their arbitral seat on the basis of whether the court of that jurisdiction is able to issue an anti-suit injunction is unproven and that such orders are no longer as popular as they once were in any event.

The Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) in the district where the respondent has (i) its seat, (ii) its usual place of business, (iii) an asset, or (iv) where the object of the arbitral award is located.

Arbitration is growing in use in contracts with a nexus to the Middle East, with parties increasingly willing to consider arbitral institutions and seats in the region.

She has acted as counsel as well as secretary to the tribunal in ad - hoc arbitrations and before major arbitral institutions (including ICC, DIS, VIAC, NAI, CAS), at multiple seats and governed by a variety of substantive and procedural laws.

Counsel for Stans Energy Corporation before the High Court of England and Wales defending a challenge brought by the Kyrgyz Republic to the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal seated in London and hearing claims under the Kyrgyz Foreign Investment Law.

The Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) provides the courts with various powers to support arbitral proceedings seated in England or elsewhere, whether it be a case of «urgency» under section 44 (3) or in non-urgent cases under section 44 (4).

In fact, the Singapore High Court went further to state that it would be an abuse of process to allow a party who had raised a jurisdictional challenge but chose not to participate in most part of the arbitration, to wait till the opposing party goes through the entire arbitral process, obtains an award, only to be met by a setting aside application at the seat when it could have done so within the 30 - day period under Article 16 (3) of the Model LaIn fact, the Singapore High Court went further to state that it would be an abuse of process to allow a party who had raised a jurisdictional challenge but chose not to participate in most part of the arbitration, to wait till the opposing party goes through the entire arbitral process, obtains an award, only to be met by a setting aside application at the seat when it could have done so within the 30 - day period under Article 16 (3) of the Model Lain most part of the arbitration, to wait till the opposing party goes through the entire arbitral process, obtains an award, only to be met by a setting aside application at the seat when it could have done so within the 30 - day period under Article 16 (3) of the Model Law.

This dispute highlights the inconsistent approach across Europe towards enforcement of arbitral awards which have been set aside in the jurisdiction where the arbitration was seated.

The choice of seat in an arbitration agreement determines the supervisory framework which underpins the arbitral proceedings.

In Maximov v NMLK [1] the English Commercial Court tackled again the thorny issue of the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award which has been set aside by the supervisory courts in the seat of the arbitratioIn Maximov v NMLK [1] the English Commercial Court tackled again the thorny issue of the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award which has been set aside by the supervisory courts in the seat of the arbitratioin the seat of the arbitration.

National laws of the seat of the arbitration may provide that the court is entitled to order consolidation of connected arbitral proceedings for example via the Arbitration Act in the Netherlands; the California Code of Civil Procedure and Canadian Provincial laws.

In the commercial context, if allegations of behaviour which is unlawful (or contrary to public policy) are raised before the arbitral tribunal, it will have to consider the consequences under the applicable law, and may also be required to have regard to the potential impact of the mandatory law and public policy of the arbitral seat and the place of performance of any relevant agreement, as well as transnational public policy.

As EU law is according to Eco-Swiss a public policy ground which requires national courts to review arbitral awards for their compatibility with EU law, this means that any arbitral awards where the arbitration seat is in an EU Member State, or the recognition and enforcement of the award in an EU Member State is sought, can be successfully challenged in front of national EU courts.

For example, the Arbitration Act 1996 (which applies where the arbitral seat is in England and Wales or Northern Ireland) provides that an arbitral tribunal may decide all procedural matters, subject to the parties» right to agree any matter.

It is possible that awards of multiple damages are contrary to English public policy and that an arbitral tribunal seated in England and Wales would refuse to award them on that basis.

Parties should consider making provision in their arbitration agreement for the applicable arbitral rules, governing law, arbitral seat, language of the arbitration, and number of arbitrators.

In Accentuate Ltd v ASIGRA Inc. [2009] EWHC 2655, however, the High Court suggested that an arbitration agreement will be considered «null, void and inoperative» if it purports to require the submission of disputes governed by mandatory EU law to an arbitral tribunal seated in a non-EU state applying non-EU laIn Accentuate Ltd v ASIGRA Inc. [2009] EWHC 2655, however, the High Court suggested that an arbitration agreement will be considered «null, void and inoperative» if it purports to require the submission of disputes governed by mandatory EU law to an arbitral tribunal seated in a non-EU state applying non-EU lain a non-EU state applying non-EU law.

We have extensive experience acting as counsel in international commercial and investment treaty arbitrations under all major arbitral rules, seated in Australia and around the world.

We have been instructed in international arbitrations under the main arbitral rules and seated in all the main arbitral centres and frequently participate in all forms of dispute resolution.

The section on conduct and procedure of an arbitration where the seat is in Nigeria includes matters such as: the appointment and challenge of arbitrators; jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal; interim measures; procedure and evidence; default powers of the tribunal; and multiparty proceedings.

In such circumstances, each move of the arbitral tribunal does not of itself mean that the seat of the arbitration changes.

It is much apparent that the disparate stands taken by both parties qua the seat of arbitration has resulted in a veritable impasse in the arbitral proceedings in the present case.